Akromioklaviküler Eklem Çıkığı Tedavisinde Çift Düğme İmplant ile Fiksasyon Fonksiyonel Sonuçlarda Klavikuler Kanca Plaktan Daha İyi Performans Göstermektedir

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4, 477 - 483, 15.12.2025

Murat Aşçı , Mete Gedikbaş

https://doi.org/10.16919/bozoktip.1789386

https://izlik.org/JA66RG97GS

Öz

Amaç: Akromiyoklaviküler eklem çıkığı (AKEÇ) için en uygun cerrahi tedavi yöntemi konusunda halen bir fikir birliği bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, hook plak (HP) ve suture-button (SB) yöntemleri ile yapılan tedavilerin fonksiyonel ve radyolojik sonuçları karşılaştırıldı.
Yöntem: Haziran 2010 – Haziran 2023 tarihleri arasında Rockwood tip III ve V AKEÇ nedeniyle ameliyat edilen hastalar retrospektif olarak incelendi. Grup I’de HP, Grup II’de SB ile tedavi edilen hastalar yer aldı. Postoperatif değerlendirmede eklem hareket açıklığı (EHA), Constant–Murley Skoru (CMS) ve American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) skoru kullanıldı. Radyolojik incelemede korakoklaviküler mesafe (KKM) ölçümleri ve Rockwood sınıflaması değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Çalışmaya 62 hasta (47 erkek, 15 kadın; ort. yaş 29,2±16,1 yıl) dahil edildi ve ortalama takip süresi 52,9±20,5 ay idi. Anatomik redüksiyon %87 hastada sağlandı. Her iki grupta CMS (53,8±6,4’ten 89,7±5,4’e) ve ASES skorlarında (40,4±7,4’ten 89,0±7,8’e) anlamlı iyileşme görüldü (p<0,01). SB grubunda abduksiyon (160° vs. 153°) ve fleksiyon (172° vs. 162°) değerleri daha yüksekti. KKM her iki grupta da anlamlı olarak azaldı. Komplikasyon oranları benzer bulunmasına rağmen implant çıkarma yalnızca KP grubunda gerekti.
Sonuç: Hem HP hem de SB yöntemi akut AKEÇ tedavisinde etkili olmakla birlikte, SB fiksasyonu daha iyi fonksiyonel sonuçlar, daha geniş omuz eklem hareket açıklığı ve implant çıkarma gereksiniminin ortadan kalkmasıyla öne çıkmaktadır. Bu nedenle SB yöntemi özellikle genç ve aktif hastalar için daha uygun bir cerrahi seçenek olarak değerlendirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akromiyoklaviküler eklem çıkığı , Hook plak fiksasyonu , Çift düğme fiksasyonu , Fonksiyonel sonuçlar.

Suture-Button Fixation Outperforms Hook Plate in Functional Outcomes After Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation

https://izlik.org/JA66RG97GS

Öz

Objective: There is no consensus on the optimal surgical treatment for acromioclavicular joint separation (ACJD). This study aimed to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of hook plate (HP) fixation and suture-button (SB) fixation.
Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for Rockwood type III and V ACJD between June 2010 and June 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Group I included patients treated with HP and Group II included patients treated with SB. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using range of motion (ROM), Constant–Murley Score (CMS), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. Radiological evaluation included coracoclavicular distance (CCD) measurements and Rockwood classification.
Results: Sixty-two patients (47 men, 15 women; mean age, 29.2±16.1 years) were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 52.9±20.5 months. Anatomical reduction was achieved in 87% of cases. Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in CMS (53.8±6.4 to 89.7±5.4) and ASES scores (40.4±7.4 to 89.0±7.8) (p<0.01). Group II demonstrated superior ROM in abduction (160° vs. 153°) and forward flexion (172° vs. 162°). Postoperative CCD decreased significantly in both groups. Complication rates were comparable, but implant removal was required only in the HP group.
Conclusion: Both fixation methods are effective for acute ACJD. However, SB fixation provides superior functional outcomes, greater shoulder mobility, and avoids the need for secondary implant removal, making it a favorable option, particularly for young and active patients

Anahtar Kelimeler

Acromioclavicular joint dislocation , Hook plate fixation , Suture-button fixation , Functional outcomes

Kaynakça

• 1. Qi J, Fu S, Ping R, Wu K, Feng Z, Xu Y, et al. Biomechanical testing of three coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction techniques with a 3D printing navigation template for clavicle-coracoid drilling. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(14):1121.
• 2. Yin J, Yin Z, Gong G, Zhu C, Sun C, Liu X. Comparison of hook plate with versus without double-tunnel coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for repair of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Surg. 2018;54(PA):18-23. s
• 3. Gorbaty JD, Hsu JE, Gee AO. Classifications in Brief: Rockwood Classification of Acromioclavicular Joint Separations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 ;475(1):283-7.
• 4. Bin Abd Razak HR, Yeo EMN, Yeo W, Lie TTD. Short-term outcomes of arthroscopic TightRope® fixation are better than hook plate fixation in acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocations. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28:869-75.
• 5. Mazzocca AD, Arciero RA, Bicos J. Evaluation and treatment of acromioclavicular joint injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):316- 29.
• 6. Mehrberg RD, Lobel SM, Gibson WK. Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. Phys Med Rehabil Clin. 2004;15(3):537-55.
• 7. Oussedik S. Injuries to the clavicle and acromioclavicular joint. Br J Hosp Med 2005. 2007;68(SUP4):M68-70.
• 8. Rockwood Jr C. Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint. Fract Adults. 1984;1:860-910.
• 9. Tauber M. Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(7):985-95.
• 10. Smith TO, Chester R, Pearse EO, Hing CB. Operative versus non-operative management following Rockwood grade III acromioclavicular separation: a meta-analysis of the current evidence base. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12(1):19-27.
• 11. Johansen JA, Grutter PW, McFarland EG, Petersen SA. Acromioclavicular joint injuries: indications for treatment and treatment options. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2):S70-82.
• 12. Hoffler CE, Karas SG. Transacromial erosion of a locked subacromial hook plate: case report and review of literature. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(3):e12-5.
• 13. Wang C, Meng JH, Zhang YW, Shi MM. Suture button versus hook plate for acute unstable acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A metaanalysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(4):1023-30.
• 14. Mares O, Luneau S, Staquet V, Beltrand E, Bousquet PJ, Maynou C. Acute grade III and IV acromioclavicular dislocations: outcomes and pitfalls of reconstruction procedures using a synthetic ligament. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010;96(7):721-6.
• 15. Ko SH, Lee CC, Jeon YD, Han JW, Lee KJ. Long-term clinical outcomes after tightrope versus hook plate fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2023;11(4):23259671231165097.
• 16. Stein T, Müller D, Blank M, Reinig Y, Saier T, Hoffmann R, et al. Stabilization of acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separation: a prospective assessment of the clavicular hook plate versus the double double-button suture procedure. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(11):2725-34.
• 17. Lloyd AJ, Hurley ET, Davey MS, Pauzenberger L, Mullet H. Arthroscopic suture-button versus hook-plate fixation for acromioclavicular joint injuries—a systematic review of comparative studies. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2020;2(5):e671-6.
• 18. Guzel I, Altunkilic T, Ari B, Boz M, Cakir M. Surgical treatment options for AC joint dislocation: Comparison of clinical outcomes of TightRope and hook plate methods. Med Sci. 2025;14(2):344-9.
• 19. Lim B, Chai A, Jassim S, Shaalan M. Tightrope versus hook plate fixation for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2025;5(3):477-86.
• 20. Kim YG, Lee HJ, Kim DW, Dan J. A comparison of results between AO hook plate and TightRope for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. J Korean Fract Soc. 2017;30(1):16-23.
• 21. Sirin E, Aydin N, Topkar OM. Acromioclavicular joint injuries: diagnosis, classification and ligamentoplasty procedures. EFORT Open Rev. 2018;3(7):426-33.
• 22. Albishi W, AlShayhan F, Alfridy A, Alaseem A, Elmaraghy A. Acromioclavicular joint separation: Controversies and treatment algorithm. Orthop Rev. 2024;16:94037.
• 23. Berthold DP, Muench LN, Dyrna F, Mazzocca AD, Garvin P, Voss A, et al. Current concepts in acromioclavicular joint (AC) instability–a proposed treatment algorithm for acute and chronic AC-joint surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):1078.
• 24. Klimkiewicz JJ, Williams GR, Sher JS, Karduna A, Des Jardins JD, Iannotti JP. The acromioclavicular capsule as a restraint to posterior translation of the clavicle: a biomechanical analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8(2):119-24.
• 25. Muench LN, Kia C, Jerliu A, Murphy M, Berthold DP, Cote MP, et al. Functional and radiographic outcomes after anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for type III/V acromioclavicular joint injuries. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(11):2325967119884539.
• 26. Hemmann P, Koch M, Gühring M, Bahrs C, Ziegler P. Acromioclavicular joint separation treated with clavicular hook plate: a study of radiological and functional outcomes. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(4):603-10.
• 27. Tienen TG, Oyen JF, Eggen PJ. A modified technique of reconstruction for complete acromioclavicular dislocation: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(5):655-9.
• 28. McCann PD. Surgical treatment of complete acromioclavicular dislocations. Tech Orthop. 1994;9(2):126-32.
• 29. von Heideken J, Windhamre HB, Une-Larsson V, Ekelund A. Acute surgical treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation type V with a hook plate: superiority to late reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(1):9-17.
• 30. Rolf O, Hann von Weyhern A, Ewers A, Boehm TD, Gohlke F. Acromioclavicular dislocation Rockwood III–V: results of early versus delayed surgical treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128:1153-7.
• 31. Asadollahi S, Bucknill A. Hook plate fixation for acute unstable distal clavicle fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(8):417-22.
• 32. ElMaraghy AW, Devereaux MW, Ravichandiran K, Agur AM. Subacromial morphometric assessment of the clavicle hook plate. Injury. 2010;41(6):613-9.
• 33. Eschler A, Gradl G, Gierer P, Mittlmeier T, Beck M. Hook plate fixation for acromioclavicular joint separations restores coracoclavicular distance more accurately than PDS augmentation, however presents with a high rate of acromial osteolysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:33-9.
• 34. Koukakis A, Manouras A, Apostolou CD, Lagoudianakis E, Papadima A, Triantafillou C, et al. Results using the AO hook plate for dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5(5):567-72.
• 35. Phadke A, Bakti N, Bawale R, Singh B. Current concepts in management of ACJ injuries. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(3):480- 5.
• 36. Khalil MH, Waly MR. Functional and radiological outcomes following arthroscopic-assisted tight-rope technique versus clavicular hook plate fixation in management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Egypt Orthop J. 2025;59(4):451-7.
• 37. Kilic E, Sarikaya B. Hook Plate Versus Suture-Button Fixation for Rockwood Types 3 and 5 Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations. Arch Basic Clin Res. 2024.